Evidence of meeting #40 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Peter Dinsdale  Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres
Rick Culbert  President, Food Safety Division, Bioniche Life Sciences Inc.
Susan Russell  Executive Director, Canadian Federation of University Women
Jim Lee  Assistant to the General President, Canadian Operations, International Association of Fire Fighters
Carolyn Watters  President, Canadian Association for Graduate Studies
David Bradley  Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance

4:35 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance

David Bradley

In the 1980s, when the federal government created the goods and services tax, we introduced a value-added tax with regard to business input. We approached this committee at that time to say, “Look, this is a significant tax on our most significant business input. It was introduced simply to raise revenue to reduce the deficit at the time. Shouldn't it be harmonized with the GST?” The committee said, “Yes, we agree with you; it should be. It's a regressive, archaic form of taxation, but we have a deficit. We can't afford it right now, so come back in a few years.” We keep coming back every year asking for it to be harmonized.

We've seen it eliminated, for example, on jewellery and other things. It's sort of odd that commercial fuel is being viewed as a luxury. I think it's an old way of thinking about these things.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Thank you.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Roy, please.

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Mr. Dinsdale.

I had an aboriginal reserve in my riding, the Maria reserve, in the Gaspé. At the time, the chief came to see me to discuss a problem I will describe to you. Afterwards, I met with other groups, who worked in the Official Languages area among others, and who dealt with Heritage Canada. Two weeks before the beginning of the school year, these people still had not received from the federal government confirmation of the amount they would be able to allocate to hiring teachers for young aboriginals. Each year, the lack of the information needed to hire teachers, the delay in transmitting the information concerning the necessary amount, posed a serious problem. To keep these teachers they had to be able to confirm to them that they would have a salary. I used to sit on the Official Languages Committee. Concerning groups which fell under Heritage Canada and were involved with official languages, we were told this: if the fiscal year ends March 31st, you will only receive the cheque for the previous year in January. So groups had to finance themselves for seven or eight months while waiting for the cheque. This was a problem. Imagine that the amount you are to receive is $100,000. You then have to borrow from the bank and pay interest. So in reality the amount you will have is not really $100,000.

Do you have the same problem with Heritage Canada at this time?

4:40 p.m.

Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres

Peter Dinsdale

Not right now; we were, and in part it was due to the Treasury Board's guidelines on the grants and contributions that govern the types of submissions and due process that need to take place.

One of the problems we ran into is when an application would take place, the department would not start the review until April 1. The program should start on April 1. Never mind the review starting on April 1; the review should start in January. We made some structural changes because we ran into that very issue. We receive our core funding in July or August or September or later, and we have to have short-term loans, which are not eligible expenses under Treasury Board guidelines, thus reducing our funding capacity.

The Department of Canadian Heritage should be congratulated for taking the necessary measures to have front-end accountability measures built in earlier in the process to review the kinds of grants we get earlier; that has been changed. In fact, we, today, are still waiting for funding for a program from HRSDC that's supposed to start April 1. We've had our proposal in since February and we're still waiting for word on the status of that application. There are a number of examples.

So it's a systemic issue. I think it's relating back to grants and contributions and Treasury Board authorities and how they're interpreted by each department. I think it puts a greater onus on making sure all the.... I think they're more concerned about process than outputs, which is always surprising to us.

We feel they should be more focused on the outputs of the programs as opposed to the process to get to the proposal and the application.

We got through this with Heritage, and we're happy to share that experience with any other officials. I know Indian Affairs with the education grants would be slightly different, but it is a challenge for sure.

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

As you mentioned, federal government support is always short term, and you are asking that it be provided for a longer term. If I understood you correctly, these amounts are renewable on a yearly basis. You cannot plan the services you want to provide from year to year if you only receive confirmation on a yearly basis of your ability to fund them. Is that the problem?

4:40 p.m.

Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres

Peter Dinsdale

I don't think it's unique to our situation. I think it's pervasive in the non-profit sector, the charitable sector, that works with the government, frankly, or most interventions. I think we build it into our business planning--delayed responses of government and delayed timelines. Frankly, it's not just to get a program started. If we submit our second payment reports in August, frequently they aren't reviewed until January and the funding is considered in March; the program we're submitting for is over and we still haven't got our second payment for the program.

The blue ribbon panel on grants and contributions is supposed to look at these things, and hopefully some of the outputs in the line departments will begin to impact on it, but it's a tremendous challenge across the board.

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

So you are always caught between a rock and a hard place. Because of the way the federal government operates, the situation leaves you in uncertainty, you and all of the organizations that provide the service. Have you made a formal request in order to be able to plan programs over three, four or five years? Do you think you will get there someday?

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Dinsdale, can we just get a brief response?

4:40 p.m.

Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres

Peter Dinsdale

Yes, absolutely.

The new Treasury Board guidelines allow for block and grant funding over a five-year period, a multi-year funding. So our hope is that we go through this process in year one of the five-year program and the multi-year agreement will take us to the end of the five years. Currently, every year we have to go through the same application process regardless of the authority's spending limits.

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you. Merci.

We'll go to Mr. Dechert now, please.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Mr. Chair, I have some questions for Mr. Bradley and the Canadian Trucking Alliance.

Mr. Bradley, you mentioned in your comments that the economic situation facing the trucking industry today in Canada is still quite fragile, although we are seeing some recovery in other areas of our economy. I assume you would agree that this is no time for an election, which would divert the government's attention from the economy, and that it might be quite irresponsible for us to proceed in that manner at this time. That's one question.

I wonder if you could also comment on how the following budget measures from our recent budgets are impacting the Canadian trucking industry, and there are a list of things I want to read out here that I hope will be beneficial for the trucking industry. They include: lowering the federal corporate tax rates and small business tax rates, and I know many small business owners are owner-operators of trucking firms; accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in manufacturing and processing equipment; support for the automotive sector through the provision of $10.8 billion to General Motors and Chrysler, and in that regard, I'm pleased to have heard recently that Chrysler has announced that it will be assembling a new Fiat model car at its plant in Brampton, Ontario, which is located very close to my riding in Mississauga; and there is $12 billion for the Canadian Secured Credit Facility to support the purchase and leasing of new vehicles such as trucks, and new investments in roads and border crossing infrastructure.

I wonder if you could give us some comments on those.

Thank you.

4:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance

David Bradley

I've often said that I don't know of many industries that have less control over their destiny than the trucking industry, so I'll leave the election comment to that.

4:45 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance

David Bradley

In terms of the budget measures, clearly, trucking being a drive-demand industry, anything that is going to enhance economic output will ultimately benefit trucking. We haul other people's goods. That said, however, specifically the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing has done nothing directly to address the fact that in our industry it takes twice as long to write off a truck in Canada as it does in the United States, for example.

There have been a lot of things to assist domestic manufacturing, but again, if you look at the trucking industry, in Ontario we have lost the two remaining heavy-truck plants that existed in the country. Perhaps that's because, at least in part.... Obviously it's a complex issue, with the economy being the overriding factor, but it seems to us that those things that we need in order to try to accelerate purchase and investment in our industry we unfortunately don't see come to fruition.

In terms of the corporate income tax rates, and I think this is an important point to raise, clearly, for Canada to compete for foreign direct investment and for businesses to set up here and to operate, we need to have competitive corporate income tax rates. Again, the trucking industry would benefit from new production staying or coming into Canada. However, as a low-margin business where profits are low, really those corporate income tax rates have not had an appreciable beneficial impact directly on the trucking industry. You have to make a profit before those things really are of much help to you. In our industry, we tend not to make a terrific profit, even in good years.

That's why it's important to us that those other things that eat into our bottom line, such as excise taxes, are addressed. Those would have a real impact on trucking. Whereas, again, the corporate income tax rates are positive and you have to have them, they don't have quite the same impact on our business.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Certainly the excise tax is an important issue. I think that's why it was included in the last budget. I'm sure we'll be proceeding on that shortly.

Obviously, we need to help generate more manufacturing in Canada in order to support the trucking industry. I'm sure the Minister of Finance is working on more ways of doing that.

Now, if you have any other suggestions on how we could do that, obviously it would be appreciated.

4:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance

David Bradley

With regard to a lot of the enviroTruck initiatives that we're talking about, it isn't just about buying big new trucks. It's about buying the tires, aerodynamic fairings, auxiliary power units, and all of those things that help improve fuel efficiency and reduce GHG. A lot of those are manufactured in Canada. Unfortunately, given the state of capital and credit in our business, it's going to take us a hundred years before we really see that stuff come into the marketplace.

The programs that are there now for cost-sharing are basically demonstration projects. We don't need demonstrations. These are proven technologies that we can employ today. Unfortunately, the funding isn't really directed in that way.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Dechert.

We'll go to Mr. Pacetti, please.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing. A lot of you have appeared before.

I have a couple of quick questions.

Mr. Culbert, I remember two years ago you made a presentation. In fact, you did get a recommendation into our report. At the time, E. coli was really the news story of the year, so with the fact that you had come up with a vaccine, it made sense to ask for government support.

What has happened since then? You would think that it would be in the best interest of cattle producers to have vaccinated everybody by now. What's happened? Why hasn't that happened? Why do you need the government to force this upon somebody who earns his living through having healthy cattle?

4:50 p.m.

President, Food Safety Division, Bioniche Life Sciences Inc.

Rick Culbert

Thank you for your question. That's very reasonable to ask. The challenge is that the benefit from vaccinating cattle is only partially realized by the cattlemen. As I said earlier, half of the illness that's due to this bacteria doesn't happen from cattle products. It's water, spinach, and so on. There's no compensation for that part of it there.

The other thing that's unique about the cattle industry is that it's extremely diversified. The person who has the cow ranch where the calf is born is about eight or nine steps away from the person who sells the final animal that gets processed into meat. There's no way to get a slight premium, say, from the end customer passed down to those who used the vaccine.

So it's--

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

My understanding, though, is that it's being done in the States, is it not?

4:50 p.m.

President, Food Safety Division, Bioniche Life Sciences Inc.

Rick Culbert

No, it is not. There is a conditionally licensed or tentatively approved competitor down there who was announced publicly. It is not being done in the States.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Okay, I thought it was you guys. So you would suggest that the government pay for the vaccine and introduce it at what stage?

September 15th, 2009 / 4:50 p.m.

President, Food Safety Division, Bioniche Life Sciences Inc.

Rick Culbert

Introduce it at what stage?